The Hot Blog

I agree. C/W was not fired, as many headlines are stating. They were up for renegotiation of their contract, and they decided not to take the new deal at Paramount. And left. For Redstone to publically make it seem otherwise silly.

For something "Not Terribly Interesting" to you, you sure do like talking about this.

Wrecktum, this is very interesting because it effects what you will be watching in theatres, and you did not read DP's Rule of Thumb #9. There Are Things I Know And Things I Don't Know And Sometimes They Change.

The dialog D.P. came up with is hilarious. D - did you see the nonsense of Michael Wolff on CNBC as, what else, a CNBC Contributor and VF Columnist, with the cool toned, pink, pale and blond-in-black Marr interviewed by Sue Herrera? What qualifies Wolff to speak, and speak and interupt on this?

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/8_0000-Lb2bxoSk0vj0Zm0pR%7ci5gb5fCIR2n6_R-z3qgv0SJNERBuT0zpJ49voHgFuGw0mWP.html?mod=ARTICLE_VIDEO

Just remembered how much these Michael Wolff-type New York media-observing guys never get Hollywood right.

Give DP credit for not writing 'this is the last time I will post on this subject' on five consecutive posts.

Wow... hadn't seen that... Michael Wolff really doesn't know shit.

It was funny how Wolff was commenting on Redstone giving quotes to a reporter when you had that very reporter in dialogue with you. First he interrupts her by misinterpreting the difference between discretionary fund and getting paid for a movie. Second he interrupts her by saying a $400 million movie cannot possible lose money, which even if that's true, it doesn't take into account the money they consider "lost" because people stayed away from seeing a Cruise movie.

Shouldn't the headline be "Cruise-ifiction"?

I just have a feeling that Mr Cruise will be mighty alright in the long term. What company doesn't want to go into business with him? He's a cash cow.

If by cash cow you mean 'cow that eats a lot of cash' you're right.

Redstone is a powerful old man who feels he's earned the right to shoot off his mouth without pussyfooting. He's opinionated, he doesn't listen to things unless they interest and agree with him, and he's being analyzed by people who don't understand the movie business or Redstone.

Cruise has been acting much the same the past couple of years, but at 44, there's no age excuse.

Par dropped Cruise-Wagner in July -- it was in a UK paper at the time and I mentioned it in passing in another thread. The Liberal Media didn't bite for the story until Par's chairman opened his mouth.

All too typical of the Liberal Media, relying mostly on official sources. That's to keep the Liberal Media from writing about:

(1) Par's awful summer -- their 2 most hyped pictures stiffed.

(2) Par using a right-wing outfit to promote "World Trade Center". For that reason I will not see the movie.

(3) Par's chairman signing his name to a "Muslims = Terrorists" advert -- just as Israel lost a war.

Chucky... without biting on the hyperbole...

a) Gossip on Cruise has been non-stop... Paramount did not dump him in July... they were negotiating two weeks ago.

1) There is a line within Paramount about this summer. Nacho and WTC were "the new regime's." The rest weren't. Doesn't help the stockholder. But it is how things are seen.

2) The idea that a studio can't sell a movie to all people and that selling to one of the many groups they are selling to is reported as news borders on pc/fascism. Where are all the stories on movies sold to blacks, jews, or women? (Rhetorical question... the answer is, "unwritten," which is where these "they're selling to the right" stories should be. I was offended by how Gibson did it on The Passion because I thought it was actively divisive. But this case was not. Nor was DaVinci. Nor are the others the NYT isn't drooling over.)

3. A political football... yes...

Chucky, if you want to consider yourself any kind of cinematically informed person, you have an obligation to see World Trade Center, in theaters or on video, if for no other reason than to see what kind of movie would be as praised as it was in certain circles. To avoid it as you say you are is to reinforce self-ignorance.

I'd be curious to know from Chucky how he travels from place to place; if he's as principled in all his economic decisions, clearly he doesn't use any petroleum products.

I am a big Oliver Stone fan, but I do not want to see World Trade Center. I am still "cinematically informed."

But are you simply uninterested in seeing it, or are you actively boycotting it because you don't care for one of its marketing companies? I don't think the movie is very interesting, but I find this to be a really pretentious attitude.
I really wish Chucky would ever stay and discuss any of these issues instead of just leaving hit and run posts.

I really wish Chucky would ever stay and discuss any of these issues instead of just leaving hit and run posts.

He doesn't stick around to discuss the issues he brings up because he is unable to.

Hey guys, any of you seen Aurora Borealis? Really amazing film with Donald Sutherland and Josh Jackson! I LOVED it!

Mag

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: